A woefully small number of state agencies have offered ideas about how to cut expenses. The rest need to shape up.

Back in December, Ben Barnes, the secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, sent a letter to heads of state agencies asking them to “submit proposals to reduce or eliminate programs.” Filing a plan wasn’t mandatory, but it was smart, considering the budget dog is still at the state’s heels and adjustments will be necessary.

Agency heads should already have in mind a number of ways to cut their spending or find new income. They knew they were going to be asked. The state deficit has ballooned to $240 million.

But some agencies, such as the University of Connecticut, responded with regrets that they simply would not be able to make any more cuts. Some agencies didn’t respond at all.

That’s not good enough. Cuts have to be made. This is an unavoidable conversation. No one is in a better position to know where to cut than agency heads. It’s their responsibility to point to where the least damage would be done and to come up with innovative ideas for doing the public’s work at lower cost.

Granted, state agencies have already made many cuts in recent years, and more cuts — in a few specific cases — could risk federal funding or legal compliance. Some agencies are lean already or badly understaffed.

But to claim that nothing at all can be cut? Even turning off a few lights could add up to savings when the state workforce exceeds 40,000 employees. Every agency needs to show that it has an oar in the water.

That so many agencies simply didn’t respond to Mr. Barnes’ request raises the question of whether some state agencies are more concerned with protecting their own bailiwick than with the plight of the state as a whole.

Mr. Barnes told The Courant in an email that “a lot of the non-response is due to the unrealistic time frame we had to work with this year. The whole process was on hold until mid-November, when we had had a chance to process and implement the adopted budget. We … normally have several months of consultation and collaboration with agencies, giving them time to identify technical and policy changes necessary. This year they barely had two weeks.”

Fair enough. And members of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s office were quick to point out that agency heads have been in regular contact with Mr. Barnes in recent weeks, even if they didn’t file a formal plan.

But some agencies, despite the short time frame, managed to come up with a plan. Good for those who are willing to engage publicly in what will be painful conversations. For example, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services proposed privatizing or eliminating a number of “beds” in the system, saving millions of dollars.

The Department of Transportation also came up with a detailed plan that includes cutting some rail service and increasing fares to compensate for increased costs. Again, we have to talk about living on less.

Those agencies, to their credit, thought it through — and, importantly, put their ideas out for public debate, where the implications can, and should, be argued.

Some problems don’t have simple solutions. The State Medical Examiner’s Office was one of those agencies that returned a blank form with no proposed cuts. In that particular case, the small office has been so understaffed that its accreditation is at risk. The governor’s office is acutely aware of that.

Running a state government is a complicated and expensive endeavor. So many programs are crucial to a working society, such as law enforcement, education and road maintenance. And complex rules about federal funding — and Connecticut already gets less than most other states — make some cuts impossible or counterproductive.

But cuts will be necessary. Nobody likes these exercises, but there is no alternative.